Abstract
The simplified approach to the Bose gas was introduced by Lieb in 1963 to study the ground state of systems of interacting Bosons. In a series of recent papers, it has been shown that the simplified approach exceeds earlier expectations, and gives asymptotically accurate predictions at both low and high density. In the intermediate density regime, the qualitative predictions of the simplified approach have also been found to agree very well with quantum Monte Carlo computations. Until now, the simplified approach had only been formulated for translation invariant systems, thus excluding external potentials, and non-periodic boundary conditions. In this paper, we extend the formulation of the simplified approach to a wide class of systems without translation invariance. This also allows us to study observables in translation invariant systems whose computation requires the symmetry to be broken. Such an observable is the momentum distribution, which counts the number of particles in excited states of the Laplacian. In this paper, we show how to compute the momentum distribution in the simplified approach, and show that, for the simple equation, our prediction matches up with Bogolyubov’s prediction at low densities, for momenta extending up to the inverse healing length.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
The Bose gas is one of the simplest models in quantum statistical mechanics, and yet it has a rich and complex phenomenology. As such, it has garnered much attention from the mathematical physics community for over half a century. It consists of infinitely many identical Bosons and is used to model a wide range of physical systems, from photons in black body radiation to gasses of helium atoms. Whereas photons do not directly interact with each other, helium atoms do, and such an interaction makes studying such systems very challenging. To account for interactions between Bosons, Bogolyubov [5] introduced a widely used approximation scheme that accurately predicts many observables [23] in the low density regime. Even though Bogolyubov theory is not mathematically rigorous, it has allowed mathematical physicists to develop the necessary intuition to prove a wide variety of results about the Bose gas, such as the low density expansion of the ground state energy of the Bose gas in the thermodynamic limit [1, 13,14,15,16, 34], as well as many other results in scaling limits other than the thermodynamic limit (see [17] for a review, as well as, among many others, [2,3,4, 6, 7, 11, 12, 19, 27, 28, 30,31,32]). In this note, we will focus on the ground state in the thermodynamic limit.
In 1963, Lieb [24,25,26] introduced a new approximation scheme to compute properties of the ground state of Bose gasses, called the simplified approach, which has recently been found to yield surprisingly accurate results [8,9,10, 20]. Indeed, while Bogolyubov theory is accurate at low densities, the simplified approach has been shown to yield asymptotically accurate results at both low and high densities [8, 9] for interaction potentials that are of positive type, as well as reproduce the qualitative behavior of the Bose gas at intermediate densities [10]. In addition to providing a promising tool to study the Bose gas, the derivation of the Simplified approach is different enough from Bogolyubov theory that it may give novel insights into longstanding open problems about the Bose gas.
The original derivation of the Simplified approach [24] is quite general, and applies to any translation invariant system (it even works for Coulomb [26] and hard-core [10] interactions). In the present paper, we extend this derivation to systems that break translation invariance. This allows us to formulate the simplified approach for systems with external potentials, and with a large class of boundary conditions. In addition, it allows us to compute observables in systems with translation invariance, but whose computation requires breaking the translation invariance. We will discuss an example of such an observable: the momentum distribution.
The momentum distribution \({\mathcal {M}}(k)\) is the probability of finding a particle in the state \(e^{ikx}\). Bose gasses are widely expected to form a Bose–Einstein condensate, although this has still not been proven (at least for continuum interacting gasses in the thermodynamic limit). From a mathematical point of view, Bose–Einstein condensation is defined as follows: if the Bose gas consists of N particles, the average number of particles in the constant state (corresponding to \(k=0\) in \(e^{ikx}\)) is of order N. The condensate fraction is defined as the proportion of particles in the constant state. The momentum distribution is an extension of the condensate fraction to a more general family of states. In particular, computing \({\mathcal {M}}(k)\) for \(k\ne 0\) amounts to counting particles that are not in the condensate. This quantity has been used in the recent proof [15, 16] of the energy asymptotics of the Bose gas at low density. A numerical computation of the prediction of the Simplified approach for \({\mathcal {M}}(k)\) has been published in [22].
The main results in this paper fall into two categories. First, we will derive the simplified approach without assuming translation invariance, see Theorem 1. To do so, we will make the so-called “factorization assumption”, on the marginals of the ground state wavefunction, see Assumption 1. This allows us to derive a simplified approach for a wide variety of situations in which translation symmetry breaking is violated, such as in the presence of external potentials. Second, we compute a prediction for the momentum distribution using the simplified approach. The simplified approach does not allow us to compute the ground state wavefunction directly, so to compute observables, such as the momentum distribution, we use the Hellmann–Feynman technique and add an operator to the Hamiltonian. In the case of the momentum distribution, this extra operator is a projector onto \(e^{ikx}\), which breaks the translation invariance of the ground state wavefunctions. In Theorem 2, we show how to compute the momentum distribution in the simplified approach using the general result of Theorem 1. In addition, we check that the prediction is credible, by comparing it to the prediction of Bogolyubov theory, and find that both approaches agree at low densities and small k, see Theorem 3.
The result in this paper concerns the derivation of the Simplified approach for Bose gasses without translation invariance. As of this writing, this derivation has not been done in a mathematically rigorous. Doing so is an important open problem (as the predictions of the simplified approach are expansive, even more so than Bogolyubov theory). However, the derivation of the simplified approach in translation invariant settings has also not been derived rigorously, and it would seem that the translation invariant situation will be easier to approach. So justifying the simplified approach in the translation invariant setting may be a more pressing task. That being said, the Simplified approach has proved to have strong predictive power [10, 22], so the extension presented in this paper has the potential to yield interesting physical predictions, as the translation-invariant approach has done (although, in all fairness, the non-translation invariant Simplified approach is computationally more difficult than the translation invariant one). In addition, the derivation of the simplified approach for the trapped Bose gas may shine some light on an extension of Gross–Piatevskii theory beyond low density regimes. Work in this direction is ongoing.
Instead of providing a derivation of the simplified approach from the many-body Bose gas (which is beyond reach at the moment), this paper aims to put the derivation of the simplified approach in non-translation invariant settings on a firm footing, and make clear what is rigorous, and what is an approximation.
The rest of the paper is structured as follows. In Sect. 2, we specify the model and state the main results precisely. We then prove Theorem 1 in Sect. 3, Theorem 2 in Sect. 4.1, and Theorem 3 in Sect. 4.2. The proofs are largely independent and can be read in any order.
2 The Model and Main Results
Consider N Bosons in a box of volume V denoted by \(\varOmega _V:=[-V^{\frac{1}{3}}/2,V^{\frac{1}{3}}/2]^3\), interacting with each other via a pair potential \(v\in L_{1}(\varOmega _V^2)\) that is symmetric under exchanges of particles: \(v(x,y)\equiv v(y,x)\) and non-negative: \(v(x,y)\geqslant 0\). The Hamiltonian acts on \(L_{2,\textrm{sym}}(\varOmega _V^N)\) as
where \(\varDelta _i\equiv \partial _{x_i}^2\) is the Laplacian with respect to the position of the i-th particle and \(P_i\) is an extra single-particle term of the following form: given a self-adjoint operator \(\varpi \) on \(L_2(\varOmega _V)\),
\(\varpi \) can be chosen to be any self-adjoint operator, as long as \({\mathcal {H}}\) is self-adjoint. For instance, if we take \(\varpi \) to be a multiplication operator by a function \(v_0\geqslant 0\), then \(\sum _i P_i\) is the contribution of the external potential \(v_0\). In particular, this potential could be taken to scale with the volume of the box V, as in the Gross-Pitaevskii approach [18, 33]. Alternatively, \(v_0\) could be taken to be a periodic external potential. Or \(\varpi \) could be a projector onto \(e^{ikx}\), which is what we will do below to compute the momentum distribution. Because \(P_i\) acts on a single particle, it can prevent H from being translation invariant (which is the case when \(\varpi \) is the multiplication operator by \(v_0>0\)). But even if it does not, because the ground states can be degenerate in the presence of \(P_i\) (see below), the translation invariance of the Hamiltonian does not necessarily translate into the translation invariance of the ground states.
We may impose any boundary condition on the box, as long as the Laplacian is self-adjoint. We will consider the thermodynamic limit, in which \(N,V\rightarrow \infty \), such that
is fixed. We consider a ground state \(\psi _0\), which is an eigenfunction of \({\mathcal {H}}\) with the lowest eigenvalue \(E_0\):
When the operator \(\varpi \) is a multiplication operator by a function \(v_0\geqslant 0\) (that is, when it is a single-body potential), the ground state is unique, real, and non-negative (this follows from the Perron–Frobenius theorem and the fact that v and \(v_0\) are non-negative, see e.g. [21, Exercise E5]). In more general settings, this is not necessarily the case. In such a case, the Simplified approach should be approximating the properties of one of the ground states, but gives no control over which one it is: as will be apparent below, the derivation of the Simplified approach does not depend on which eigenstate \(\psi _0\) is, just on the factorization Assumption 1.
This is not to say that the Simplified approach applies to all eigenstates, or even to all ground states. The crucial assumption in the simplified approach is the factorization assumption 1. As we will discuss in more detail below, this is actually an approximation rather than an assumption, since it can be shown that it cannot possibly hold exactly for any wavefunction. As such, understanding which states best approximately satisfy the factorization assumption is not an easy task. For this reason, we will remain agnostic so as to which of the ground state is studied.
In order to take the thermodynamic limit, we will assume that v is uniformly integrable in V:
where \({\bar{v}}\) and c are independent of V. In addition, we assume that, for any f that is uniformly integrable in V,
2.1 The Simplified Approach Without Translation Invariance
The crucial idea of Lieb’s construction [24] is to consider the wave function \(\psi _0\) as a probability distribution, instead of the usual \(|\psi _0|^2\). When \(\varpi \) is the multiplication by \(v_0\geqslant 0\), \(\psi _0\geqslant 0\), so \(\psi _0\), normalized by its \(L_1\) norm, is indeed a probability distribution. In other cases, the probabilistic interpretation of \(\psi _0\) falls through, and the factorization assumption 1 can no longer be interpreted in terms of statistical independence. We then define the i-th marginal of \(\psi _0\) as
that is
In particular, for \(i\in \{2,\ldots ,N\}\),
Because of the symmetry of \(\psi _0\) under exchanges of particles, \({\mathfrak {g}}_i\) is symmetric under \(x_i\leftrightarrow x_j\).
Remark: If the ground state is not unique, then there may be choices of \(\psi _0\) that are orthogonal to the constant wavefunction, that is, that integrate to 0: \(\int dy_1\ldots d y_N\ \psi _0(y_1,\ldots ,y_N)=0\). The derivation in this paper precludes such a possibility, as \({\mathfrak {g}}_i\) would be ill defined. We will therefore assume that \(\psi _0\) has non-trivial overlap with the constant wavefunction: \(\int dy_1\ldots dy_N\ \psi _0(y_1,\ldots ,y_N)\ne 0\) (which is certainly the case whenever the ground state is non-negative).
We rewrite (4) as a family of equations for \({\mathfrak {g}}_i\).
1. Integrating (4) with respect to \(x_1,\ldots ,x_N\), we find that
with
and \(B_0\) is a boundary term:
2. If, now, we integrate (4) with respect to \(x_2,\ldots ,x_N\), we find
with
in which we use the notation \(\varpi _y\) to indicate that \(\varpi \) applies to \(y\mapsto {\mathfrak {g}}_2(x,y)\), and \(B_1\) is a boundary term
3. If we integrate with respect to \(x_3,\ldots ,x_N\), we find
where, here again, \(\varpi _y\) indicates that \(\varpi \) applies to the y-degree of freedom, whereas \(\varpi _x\) applies to x, with
and \(B_2\) is a boundary term
Inspired by [24], we will make the following approximation.
Assumption 1
(Factorization) We will approximate \({\mathfrak {g}}_i\) by functions \(g_i\), which satisfy the following:
and for \(i=3,4\),
with
in which, for \(i=2,3,4\) and \(j=3,4\), \(f_j\) and \(u_i\) are bounded independently of V, \(f_i\geqslant 0\), and \(u_i\) is uniformly integrable in V:
with \(c_i\) independent of V. We further assume that, for \(i=1,2,3\), \(\forall x_1,\ldots ,x_{i-1}\),
in other words, these boundary terms vanish in the thermodynamic limit (these are indeed boundary terms by the divergence theorem).
In other words, \(g_i\) factorizes exactly as a product of pair terms \(W_i\). The \(f_i\) in \(W_i\) allow for \(W_i\) to be modulated by a slowly varying density, which is the main novelty of this paper compared to [24]. The inequality (27) ensures that \(u_i\) decays sufficiently fast on the microscopic scale. Note that, by the symmetry under exchanges of particles, \(u_i(x,y)\equiv u_i(y,x)\).
Note, in addition, that assumption (24) is less general than (25): we impose that, as x and y are far from each other, \(g_2\) converges to \(g_1(x)g_1(y)\). This is necessary: if we merely assumed that \(g_2(x,y)=f_2(x)f_2(y)(1-u_2(x,y))\), we would not necessarily recover that \(f_2=g_1\). However, as we will show below, assumption 1 does imply that \(f_3=g_1\) and \(f_4=g_1\) (up to corrections in \(V^{-1}\) that are irrelevant).
Here, we use the term “assumption” because it leads to the simplified approach. However, it is really an approximation rather than an assumption: this factorization will certainly not hold true exactly. At best, one might expect that the assumption holds approximately in the limit of small and large \(\rho \), and for distant points, as numerical evidence suggests in the translation invariant case. In the present paper, we will not attempt a proof that this approximation is accurate, and instead explore its consequences. Suffice it to say that this approximation is one of statistical independence that is reminiscent of phenomena arising in statistical mechanics when the density is low, that is, when the interparticle distances are large. In the current state of the art, we do not have much in the way of an explanation for why this statistical independence should hold (especially in cases where \(\psi _0\) is not even non-negative); instead, we have extensive evidence, both numerical [10] and analytical [8, 9], that this approximation leads to very accurate predictions.
From this point on, we will make no further approximations, and derive the consequences of assumption 1 in a mathematically rigorous way. This thus makes clear what is an approximation, and what is not.
The equations of the Simplified approach are derived from Assumption 1, using the eigenvalue Eq. (4) along with
(all of which hold for \({\mathfrak {g}}_i\), by (9)) to compute \(u_i\) and \(f_i\).
In the translation invariant case, the factorization assumption leads to an equation for \(g_2\) alone, as \(g_1\) is constant. When translation invariance is broken, \(g_1\) is no longer constant, and the simplified approach consists in two coupled equations for \(g_1\) and \(g_2\).
Theorem 1
If \(g_i\) satisfies Assumption 1, the Eqs. (14) and (19) with \({\mathfrak {g}}_1\) replaced by \(g_1\) and \({\mathfrak {g}}_2\) by \(g_2\), as well as (29)–(32), then \(g_1\) and \(u_2\) satisfy the two coupled equations
and
where
in which \(\varpi _x\) is the action of \(\varpi \) on the x-variable, and similarly for \(\varpi _y\) and
pointwise. The prediction for the energy per particle is defined as
where \(\varSigma _0\rightarrow 0\) as \(V\rightarrow \infty \).
This theorem is proved in Sect. 3.
Let us compare this to the equation for u in the Simplified approach in the translation invariant case [10, (5)], [20, (3.15)]:
We will prove that these follow from Theorem 1:
Corollary 1
(Translation invariant case) In the translation invariant case \(v(x,y)\equiv v(x-y)\) and \(\varpi =0\) with periodic boundary conditions, if (33)–(34) has a unique translation invariant solution, then (34) reduces to (44) in the thermodynamic limit.
The idea of the proof is quite straightforward. Equation (34) is very similar to (44), but for the addition of the extra term \({\bar{R}}_2\). An inspection of (41) shows that the terms in \({\bar{R}}_2\) are mostly of the form \(f-\left<f\right>\), which vanish in the translation invariant case, and terms involving \(\varpi \), which is set to 0 in the translation invariant case. The only remaining extra term is \(\bar{C}(x)+{\bar{C}}(y)\), which we will show vanishes in the translation invariant case due to the identity (30).
Theorem 1 is quite general, and can be used to study a trapped Bose gas, in which there is an external potential \(v_0\). In this case, \(\varpi \) is a multiplication operator by \(v_0\). A natural approach is to scale \(v_0\) with the volume: \(v_0(x)={\bar{v}}_0(V^{-1/3}x)\) in such a way that the size of the trap grows as \(V\rightarrow \infty \), thus ensuring a finite local density in the thermodynamic limit. Following the ideas of Gross and Pitaevskii [18, 33], we would then expect to find that (33) and (34) decouple, and that (34) reduces to the translation invariant Eq. (44), with a density that is modulated over the trap. However, the presence of \({\bar{R}}_2\) in (34) and \({\bar{C}}\) in (33) breaks this picture. Further investigation of this question is warranted.
2.2 The Momentum Distribution
The momentum distribution for the Bose gas is defined as
where \(\varphi _0\) is the ground state of the Hamiltonian
and
and \(P_i\) is defined as in (2):
Equivalently,
where \(E_0\) is the ground-state energy in (4) for the Hamiltonian (48). Using the simplified approach, we do not have access to the ground state wavefunction, so we cannot compute \({\mathcal {M}}\) using (47). Instead, we use the Hellmann-Feynman theorem, which consists in adding \(\sum _iP_i\) to the Hamiltonian. However, doing so does not ensure the uniqueness of the ground state, and thus, we are not guaranteed that the wavefunction \(\psi _0\) is translation invariant. This is why Theorem 1 is needed to compute the momentum distribution within the framework of the Simplified approach. (A similar computation was done in [10], but, there, the derivation of the momentum distribution for the Simplified approach was taken for granted.)
By Theorem 1, and, in particular, (43), we obtain a natural definition of the prediction of the Simplified approach for the momentum distribution:
Theorem 2
(Momentum distribution) Under the assumptions of Theorem 1, using periodic boundary conditions, if v is translation invariant and \(\varpi =0\), and if (33) and (34) have solutions that are twice differentiable in \(\epsilon \), uniformly in V, then, if \(k\ne 0\),
where
where K and L are those of the translation invariant Simplified approach (45) and (46) and
We thus compute the momentum distribution. To check that our prediction is plausible, we compare it to the Bogolyubov prediction, which can easily be derived from [29, Appendix A]:
(this can be obtained by differentiating [29, (A.26)] with respect to \(\epsilon (k)\), which returns the number of particles in the state \(e^{ikx}\), which we divide by \(\rho \) to obtain the momentum distribution). Actually, following the ideas of [23], we replace \({\hat{v}}\) by a so-called “pseudopotential”, which consists in replacing v by a Dirac delta function, while preserving the scattering length:
where the scattering length a is defined in [29, Appendix C]. Thus,
We prove that, for the simple equation, as \(\rho \rightarrow 0\), the prediction for the momentum distribution coincides with Bogolyubov’s, for \(|k|\lesssim \sqrt{\rho a}\). The length scale \(1/\sqrt{\rho a}\) is called the healing length, and is the distance at which pairs of particles correlate [15]. It is reasonable to expect the Bogolyubov approximation to break down beyond this length scale.
The momentum distribution for the simple equation, following the prescription detailed in [8,9,10, 20], is defined as
where [8, (1.1)–(1.2)]
where F was defined in (55).
Theorem 3
Assume that v is translation and rotation invariant (\(v(x,y)\equiv v(|x-y|)\)), and consider periodic boundary conditions. We rescale k:
we have, for all \(\kappa \in {\mathbb {R}}^3\),
The rotation invariance of v is presumably not necessary. However, the proof of this theorem is based on [9], where rotational symmetry was assumed for convenience.
3 The Simplified Approach Without Translation Invariance, Proof of Theorem 1
3.1 Factorization
We will first compute \(f_i\) and \(u_i\) for \(i=3,4\) in Assumption 1.
3.1.1 Factorization of \(g_3\)
Lemma 1
Assumption 1 with \(i=2,3\) and (29)–(31) imply that
with
Proof
1. We first expand to order \(V^{-1}\). By (27),
so, by (26),
By (24),
We take \(\int \frac{dy}{V}\cdot \) on both sides of this equation. However, by (30),
so, by (29),
Combining this with (67), we find
and, integrating once more implies that \(\int \frac{dy}{V}f_3^2(y)=1+O(V^{-1})\). Therefore,
and
2. We push the expansion to order \(V^{-2}\): (66) is
Therefore, by (71),
Now, let us apply \(\int \frac{dy}{V}\cdot \) to both sides of the equation. Note that, by (27),
Furthermore, by (71),
We are thus left with
Taking \(\int \frac{dx}{V}\cdot \), we thus find that
and
Therefore,
\(\square \)
3.1.2 Factorization of \(g_4\)
Lemma 2
Assumption 1 and (29)–(32) imply that
with
where \(w_3\) is the same as in Lemma 1.
Proof
1. We expand to order \(V^{-1}\). By (27),
so by (26),
By (24),
Applying \(\int \frac{dy}{V}\cdot \) to both sides of the equation, using (71) and (88),
Integrating once more, we have \(\int \frac{dy}{V}f_4^3(z)=1+O(V^{-1})\) and
Therefore,
2. We push the expansion to order \(V^{-2}\): by (27),
so
By (71),
We apply \(\int \frac{dy}{V}\cdot \) to both sides of the equation. By (78)-(80), we find
Taking \(\int \frac{dx}{V}\cdot \), we find that
and
Therefore,
\(\square \)
3.2 Consequences of the Factorization
proof of Theorem 1
We rewrite (10), (14) and (19) using Lemmas 1 and 2.
1. We start with (10): by (5) and (24),
so
2. We now turn to (14): by (5) and (24),
and by Lemma 1,
(we used (64) to write \(u_3=u_2+O(V^{-1})\); this works fine for \(u_3(x,y)\) and \(u_3(x,z)\) because the integrals over y and z are controlled by \(v(y,z)w_3(x,y)\) and \(v(y,z)w_3(x,z)\) using (5) and (27); in the first term, it does not work for \(u_3(y,z)\), as \(v(y,z)w_3(y,z)\) can only control one of the integrals, and not both; the second term has an extra \(V^{-1}\) that lets us replace \(u_3\) by \(u_2\)) and by (27) and (6),
The first term in \(G_1^{(3)}\) is of order V:
in which the only term of order V is the first one, and is equal to the first term of order V in \(E_0\), and thus cancels out. There is a similar cancellation between the second term of order V in \(F_1^{(2)}\) and \(E_0\). All in all,
with, recalling \(\rho :=N/V\),
and using (65),
Rewriting this using (35)–(38), we find (33) with
3. Finally, we rewrite (19): by (5) and Lemma 1,
and by Lemma 2,
The first term in \(G_2^{(4)}\) is of order V: by (86),
in which the only term of order V is the first one, and is equal to the term of order V in \(E_0\), and thus cancels out. There is a similar cancellation between the term of order V in \(F_2^{(3)}\) and \(E_0\). All in all,
with
and by (65),
4. Expanding out \(\Pi \), see (117), we find (34) with
and
Using (37) and (38), (125) becomes (41).
5. Finally, (43) follows from (10) with
\(\square \)
3.3 Sanity Check, Proof of Corollary 1
Proof of Corollary 1
Assuming the translation invariance of the solution, \(g_1(x)\) is constant. By (29),
Furthermore, \(\varpi \equiv 0\). We then have
(see (45) and (46)). Furthermore,
which vanishes by (30). Thus,
We conclude by taking the thermodynamic limit.
4 The Momentum Distribution
4.1 Computation of the Momentum Distribution, Proof of Theorem 2
Proof of Theorem 2
We use Theorem 1 with \(\varpi \) as in (49). Note that, by (49),
which trivially satisfies (6).
1. We change variables in (34) to
and find
In addition, by (43),
We expand in powers of \(\epsilon \):
in which we used the fact that, at \(\epsilon =0\), \(g_1(x)|_{\epsilon =0}=1\), see (128). In particular, the terms of order 0 in \(\epsilon \) are independent of \(\xi \). Note, in addition, that, by (29),
2. The trick of this proof is to take the average with respect to \(\xi \) on both sides of (136). Since we take periodic boundary conditions, the \(\varDelta _\xi \) term drops out. We will only focus on the first order contribution in \(\epsilon \), and, as was mentioned above, terms of order 0 are independent of \(\xi \). Thus, the average over \(\xi \) will always apply to a single term, either \(g_1^{(1)}\) or \(u_2^{(1)}\). By (29), the terms involving \(g_1^{(1)}\) have zero average. We can therefore replace \(g_1^{(1)}\) by 1. (The previous argument does not apply to the terms in which \(\varDelta _\zeta \) acts on \(g_1\), but these terms have a vanishing average as well because of the periodic boundary conditions.) In particular, by (30) and (24),
so
and thus, we can replace \(u_2\) with \(u_2^{(0)}\). Thus, using the translation invariant computation detailed in Sect. 3.3, we find that the average of (136) is
where K and L are defined in (45) and (46) and F comes from the contribution to \({\bar{R}}_2\) of \(\varpi \), see (41):
Similarly, (137) is
3. Furthermore, by (49),
for any integrable f, so
and
Now,
so
Similarly,
Thus
Since \(k\ne 0\), the \(\delta \) function drops out. We conclude the proof by combining (142), (147) and (151) and taking the thermodynamic limit.
4.2 The Simple Equation and Bogolyubov Theory, Proof of Theorem 3
Proof of Theorem 3
1. We differentiate (60) with respect to \(\epsilon \) and take \(\epsilon =0\):
Let
(this operator was introduced and studied in detail in [9]). We apply \({\mathfrak {K}}_e\) to both sides and take a scalar product with \(-\rho v/2\) and find
and so, using (59),
and, by (55),
Note that
which is the expression for the uncondensed fraction for the simple equation [10, (38)].
2. By [9, (5.8), (5.27)],
Furthermore, by the resolvent identity,
in terms of which, using the self-adjointness of \({\mathfrak {K}}_e\),
3. Now, taking the Fourier transform,
and so
and thus
We recall [8, (4.25)]:
and, by [8, (4.24)],
Therefore, if we rescale
we find
4. Now,
so
Therefore,
which, using the \(q\mapsto -q\) symmetry, is
that is,
in which we rescale
Therefore, by dominated convergence (using the argument above [9, (5.23)] and the fact that \({\mathfrak {K}}_e\) is positivity preserving), and by [9, (5.23)-(5.24)],
5. Inserting (167) and (175) into (160), we find
Finally, we recall [8, (1.23)]:
so
6. Finally, by (58)
so by (177),
Data Availability
Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
References
Basti, G., Cenatiempo, S., Schlein, B.: A new second-order upper bound for the ground state energy of dilute Bose gases. Forum Math. 9, e74 (2021)
Boccato, C., Brennecke, C., Cenatiempo, S.: Complete Bose–Einstein condensation in the Gross–Pitaevskii regime. Commun. Math. Phys. 359(3), 975–1026 (2017)
Boccato, C., Brennecke, C., Cenatiempo, S., Schlein, B.: Bogoliubov theory in the Gross–Pitaevskii limit. Acta Math. 222(2), 219–335 (2019)
Boccato, C., Brennecke, C., Cenatiempo, S., Schlein, B.: Optimal rate for Bose–Einstein condensation in the Gross–Pitaevskii regime. Commun. Math. Phys. 376(2), 1311–1395 (2019)
Bogolyubov, N.N.: On the theory of superfluidity. Izv. Akad. Nauk Ser. Fiz. 11, 23–32 (1947)
Brennecke, C., Schlein, B., Schraven, S.: Bogoliubov theory for trapped Bosons in the Gross–Pitaevskii regime. Ann. Henri Poincaré 23(5), 1583–1658 (2022)
Brennecke, C., Schlein, B., Schraven, S.: Bose–Einstein condensation with optimal rate for trapped Bosons in the Gross–Pitaevskii regime. Math. Phys. Anal. Geom. 25, 2 (2022)
Carlen, E.A., Jauslin, I., Lieb, E.H.: Analysis of a simple equation for the ground state energy of the Bose gas. Pure Appl. Anal. 23, 659–684 (2020)
Carlen, E.A., Jauslin, I., Lieb, E.H.: Analysis of a simple equation for the ground state of the Bose gas II: monotonicity, convexity, and condensate fraction. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 53(5), 5322–5360 (2021)
Carlen, E.A., Holzmann, M., Jauslin, I., Lieb, E.H.: Simplified approach to the repulsive Bose gas from low to high densities and its numerical accuracy. Phys. Rev. A 103, 5 (2021)
Deuchert, A., Seiringer, R.: Gross–Pitaevskii limit of a homogeneous Bose gas at positive temperature. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 236(3), 1217–1271 (2020)
Deuchert, A., Seiringer, R., Yngvason, J.: Bose–Einstein condensation in a dilute, trapped gas at positive temperature. Commun. Math. Phys. 368(2), 723–776 (2018)
Dyson, F.J.: Ground-state energy of a hard-sphere gas. Phys. Rev. 106(1), 20–26 (1957)
Elliott, H.: Ground state energy of the low density Bose gas. Phys. Rev. Lett. 80(12), 2504–2507 (1998)
Fournais, S., Solovej, J.P.: The energy of dilute Bose gases. Ann. Math. 192(3), 893–976 (2020)
Fournais, S., Solovej, J.P.: The energy of dilute Bose gases II: the general case. Inventiones mathematicae 232(2), 863–994 (2022)
Frank, R.L., Laptev, A., Lewin, M., Seiringer, R. (eds.): The Physics and Mathematics of Elliott Lieb, ch Bose Gases in the Gross-Pitaevskii Limit: A Survey of Some Rigorous Results. EMS Press, Helsinki (2022)
Gross, E.P.: Structure of a quantized vortex in boson systems. Il Nuovo Cimento 20(3), 454–477 (1961)
Hainzl, C., Schlein, B., Triay, A.: Bogoliubov theory in the Gross–Pitaevskii limit. arXiv:2203.03440 (2022)
Jauslin, I.: Review of a Simplified Approach to Study the Bose Gas at All Densities, The Physics and Mathematics of Elliott Lieb, pp. 609–635. EMS Press, Helsinki (2022)
Jaulsin, I.: Bose–Einstein condensation and the simplified approach to interacting Bosons. arXiv:2308.00290 (2023)
Jauslin, I.: Evidence of a liquid phase in interacting bosons at intermediate densities. arXiv:2302.13449 (2023)
Lee, T.D., Huang, K., Yang, C.N.: Eigenvalues and eigenfunctions of a Bose system of hard spheres and its low-temperature properties. Phys. Rev. 106(6), 1135–1145 (1957)
Lieb, E.H.: Simplified approach to the ground-state energy of an imperfect Bose gas. Phys. Rev. 1306, 2518–2528 (1963)
Lieb, E.H., Liniger, W.: Simplified approach to the ground-state energy of an imperfect Bose gas. III. Application to the one-dimensional model. Phys. Rev. 134(2A), A312–A315 (1964)
Lieb, E.H., Sakakura, A.Y.: Simplified approach to the ground-state energy of an imperfect Bose gas. II. Charged Bose gas at high density. Phys. Rev. 133(4A), A899–A906 (1964)
Lieb, E.H., Seiringer, R.: Proof of Bose–Einstein condensation for dilute trapped gases. Phys. Rev. Lett. 88(17), 170409 (2002)
Lieb, E.H., Seiringer, R., Yngvason, J.: Bosons in a trap: A rigorous derivation of the Gross–Pitaevskii energy functional. Phys. Rev. A 61, 4 (2000)
Lieb, E.H., Seiringer, R., Solovej, J.P., Yngvason, J.: The Mathematics of the Bose Gas and Its Condensation, vol. 34. Birkhauser, Boston (2005)
Nam, P.T., Triay, A.: Bogoliubov excitation spectrum of trapped Bose gases in the Gross–Pitaevskii regime. arXiv:2106.11949 (2021)
Nam, P.T., Rougerie, N., Seiringer, R.: Ground states of large bosonic systems: the Gross–Pitaevskii limit revisited. Anal. PDE 9(2), 459–485 (2016)
Nam, P.T., Napiórkowski, M., Ricaud, J., Triay, A.: Optimal rate of condensation for trapped bosons in the Gross–Pitaevskii regime. Anal. PDE 15(6), 1585–1616 (2022)
Pitaevskii, L.P.: Vortex lines in an imperfect Bose gas. Sov. Phys. JETP 132, 451–454 (1961)
Yau, H.-T., Yin, J.: The second order upper bound for the ground energy of a Bose gas. J. Stat. Phys. 136(3), 453–503 (2009)
Acknowledgements
The author thanks Elliott H. Lieb, Eric A. Carlen and Markus Holzmann for many valuable discussions. The author also thanks two anonymous referees, who provided extremely valuable feedback, and caught errors in the earlier drafts of this paper. The author acknowledges support from the Simons Foundation, Grant Number 825876.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
There are no conflict of interest with regards to this publication.
Additional information
Communicated by Simone Warzel.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Jauslin, I. The Simplified Approach to the Bose Gas Without Translation Invariance. J Stat Phys 191, 88 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10955-024-03299-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10955-024-03299-4